Radical freedom-destroying schemes

It’s too late for murder victims to call 911. That fact eludes some people.

There aren’t enough cops to be security guards for everyone. They arrive after the crime was committed. That is why we must be able to protect ourselves.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke was criticized for “urging Milwaukee-area residents to learn to handle firearms so they can defend themselves…” (Jan. 26 article). He is living in the real world compared to his anti-gun critics.

Mayor Barrett’s office ridiculed the sheriff with this inane remark: “Apparently Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie.”

Obama’s anti-gun voting record in the Illinois Senate also speaks for itself: “He invoked the ire of gun rights advocates when he voted against a measure that would have exempted prosecution of people who fire guns to fend off home invaders, inspired by a man who shot an intruder who repeatedly broke into his home.” (Feb. 16 Gazette).

How could Obama, then a state senator, oppose such reasonable legislation giving homeowners the right to defend themselves and their families? It’s obvious his beliefs in strict gun control laws aren’t based on an interest in reducing crime. You don’t reduce crime by telling criminals that the owners of houses they break into will be arrested if they resist.

To radical liberals/progressives, gun control is about controlling people, not reducing crime. A big reduction in crime makes that issue harder to exploit for political purposes. They also fear that armed citizens might resist their radical freedom-destroying social engineering schemes.